I suspect the one liner you quoted is out of context. Sun is not a charity nor in the position to be overly charitable.

Well I disagree it was taken out of context. Assuming the quote is actually accurate, it seems relevant to the discussion. But I agree that in Sun's current financial position it would be hard to justify just handing over something that is a revenue generator.

My original thoughts still stand though. It seems plausible that offsetting the costs of future development of Java by the use of an open source model (distributing development around a number of companies/individuals), judicious use of commercial licenses, TCKs, etc might outweigh the revenue gathered through straight licensing alone (all guesswork of course ). A difficult hypothesis to prove or disprove by anyone lower than a few rungs down the management ladder at Sun, I suspect.

Interesting, so now we go back to the point that Jeff brought up. Why doesn't IBM open source THEIR implementation if they think it is such a great idea??? (I still wonder if they have some Sun code in their implementation and are therefore covered by terms of Sun's license.)

Considering how much propoganda (I mean publicity ) IBM give their open source projects, it seems unlikely they wouldn't take advantage of the opportunity to open source their Java implementation... so I suspect you're right.

The vision of Sun and IBM working together on improving Java is a nice one. I'm looking forward to Sun's answer.

Regarding the thread topic I have found out that most developers of Open Source Java implementations were not happy with Eric Raymond's letter (especially the fact that he didn't contact them before). Sun will be contacted by developers with more serious and polite proposals, with the aim of making the development of an Open Source implementation easier, within the next weeks.

Interesting, so now we go back to the point that Jeff brought up. Why doesn't IBM open source THEIR implementation if they think it is such a great idea??? (I still wonder if they have some Sun code in their implementation and are therefore covered by terms of Sun's license.)

I think that is the proposal.

From article: "Under the offer, IBM would provide technical resources and CODE for the open-source Java implementation while Sun would provide documentation and tests around the Java specifications, which Sun controls." Doesn't that sound like IBM wants to give their code? Btw. does anyone have a complete letter?

Yeah, and then get eaten alive like when they gave SWT away. I'm much happier with this approach, trying to work with Sun. I found the letter:

"In the article, Simon asked, "Why hasn't IBM given its implementation of Java to the open-source community?" I'm sure you recall the discussion we had over dinner in December around open sourcing Java. Simon's comment appears to be an offer to jointly work toward this common goal. IBM is a strong supporter of the open source community, and we believe that a first class open source Java implementation would further enhance Java's position in the industry by spurring growth of new applications and encouraging new innovation in the Java platform.

Here is the offer: IBM would like to work with Sun on an independent project to open source Java. Sun's strong commitment to open source Java would speed the development of a first class and compatible open source Java implementation to the benefit of our customers and the industry. IBM is ready to provide technical resources and code for the open source Java implementation while Sun provides the open source community with Sun materials, including Java specifications, tests and code. We are firmly convinced the open source community would rally around this effort and make substantial contributions as well.

This would be a very exciting step for IBM and Sun. I am convinced that the creation of an open source implementation of the Java environment would be of enormous importance to the developer community and our industry's collective customers. It would open a whole world of opportunity for new applications and growth of the Java community. In addition, this would accelerate the growth and adoption of technologies that are built on Java and are critical to our customers today, including Web services and Service Oriented Architecture.

Seems fair enough, though Sun already provides the all specs, and you can at least look at the code - though that is more of a problem if you intend to write new code and say it has nothing to do with Sun's code.

I'm actually all for it, so long as Sun, or some other entity not likely to be influenced by the evil empire, maintains control over what is and isn't "Java".

I'm actually all for it, so long as Sun, or some other entity not likely to be influenced by the evil empire, maintains control over what is and isn't "Java".

The probability that such a huge programming language project like Java will be forked is very low and if it happens, then there is possibly a good reason to do it. The chance that it will develop in a direction, which doesn't fit the needs of the users anymore, is even lower. The dual licensing approach mentioned in one of the articles above can make it very difficult for the "evil empire" to influence Java negatively, so this may be a good choice to be on the safe side, although it has some drawbacks.

Interesting, so now we go back to the point that Jeff brought up. Why doesn't IBM open source THEIR implementation if they think it is such a great idea??? (I still wonder if they have some Sun code in their implementation and are therefore covered by terms of Sun's license.)

Are they really at liberty to do this?I know for example that blackdown is not allowed to open the source to their implementation because it shares Sun code.If this is the same case with IBM, then I'd understand why they can not open source Java.

I feel however that Java should be opened op to the JCP and that one sanctioned implementation comes from that which may be called Java.This will prevent fragmenting.Now if Sun could get rid of some of their strict licences on their JRE (so that Linux distro's and the like may distribute it) we would be all set ^__^

Yes and no.The JSR does usualy create the standards and a reference implementation, but after that it's on Sun to implement this into the VM.And all the other vendors will do the same.

Now I'm sure you are aware that IBM has loads of programmers working on Java as it is.If they could merge their codebases and work together with the JCP lots of interest groups would then be able to work on the same VM with company's only doing ports to ensure the VM runs on their hardware/Os.

Nothing should go into the official VM without the JCP behind it.I'd be interested in how this works out, really

Sun's Schwartz always comes up with the forking argument. He says there are so many Linux distributions and he doesn't want to have different Java versions. This argument doesn't make much sense, because you cannot compare a Linux distribution with a certain piece of software.

I'd like to see Mono getting more popular. It has GTK bindings and theoretically significant portions of the Gnome desktop could be written in Mono within the next years. And Sun is a supporter of Gnome ...

Sun's Schwartz always comes up with the forking argument. He says there are so many Linux distributions and he doesn't want to have different Java versions. This argument doesn't make much sense, because you cannot compare a Linux distribution with a certain piece of software.

I think you can. There are all sorts of differences between Linux distros that make no sense at all - except to make things difficult for end users (e.g. different 'standard' locations for config files, libraries, applications, etc.). If every individual is allowed to do things their way forking is inevitable and the general end user suffers.

But with the proper license and regulatory body you would think that Java could be open source. I personally don't think there is that much to gain over the fairly open JCP and Sun source license that we have now. There is likely something to gain.. but probably a lot less than people think.

I think you can. There are all sorts of differences between Linux distros that make no sense at all - except to make things difficult for end users (e.g. different 'standard' locations for config files, libraries, applications, etc.). If every individual is allowed to do things their way forking is inevitable and the general end user suffers.

You are telling your opinion why you think it's not good to have several Linux distributions. This doesn't explain why a comparision between one piece of software (Java) and thousands of packages plus install/configuration tools (a distribution) makes sense.

It's a non argument anyway. I doubt very much that statement has anything to do with the reasons Schwartz isn't keen. It's just a quick and easy sound bite.

Anyone with less than half a brain can see that open sourcing java does not mean fragmentation assuming there is proper regulation/controls in place. He's just telling reporters what they want to hear, so he doesn't have to go into the real reasons.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org